It's News Corp's annual meeting on Friday. This year, surprisingly, the meeting is in Los Angeles, rather than the more familiar New York, which means that it won't start until 6pm London time. No doubt it is a coincidence that coverage of the event will therefore only make the later editions of the Saturday press. Of course, Rupert Murdoch has 40% of the votes, so there's no prospect of company management losing any battles, but there are enough dissenting shareholders and even our very own Tom Watson MP to promise some excitements on the way.

A few weeks ago the Guardian asked how much Brooks received, who authorised it, and whether there was any possibility that the money would be clawed back if police pressed charges against her (it's called "mitigation" in employment law jargon). No answers were received, so it's time to publish the questions in the hope that somebody raises the point at the annual meeting. After all £4m is $6m, and more to the point, in anybody's currency that is a lot of money for company directors to be handing out to executives who resign.

Here are the questions:

1. Is it correct Rebekah Brooks was paid a severance of £3.5m or £4m as variously reported?

2. Who approved this payment - was it the News Corp board, the chief executive or the chief executive of News Corp Europe and Asia?

3. Was the payment authorised before or after the former chief executive of News International was arrested?

4. Will payments be mitigated in the event criminal charges are brought against the former chief executive or if there is a conviction?

5. Why was a severance payment of this magnitude authorised when the former chief executive of News International resigned?

6. What was the basis of the severance payment? Executives at NI have a one year notice period according to sources, but the reported figure appears greater than this.